It is nothing less than a farce in the face of history and I would have ignored it completely except that it is a perfect example of how history is full of such efforts in changing history, abusing its context, to somehow have one side look better of the only option at the expense of others. In this case it is to create hate for profit but the tools are the same.

We can add that if John J O’Neill wishes to be considered academic, then why does he avoid context, all facts and tellingly write for and associate with the likes of Geller and would-be-academics like the blogger Robert Spencer?

Do go to the link and read its style, to learn how well worded text may look scholarly but in fact when looked into are just ugly propoganda tools. I wrote the following reply, I doubt it will stay long, thus my publishing it here.

It is a tragedy when one tries to write history to prove an agenda, rather than discover facts based on studying the history in the first place. The author has most certainly failed on this case, and clearly struggles in desperation to find source to justify it.

Henri Pirenne is regarded as a history writer of Belgium and now is rather discarded as an example of a time when Belgium tried to justify itself when it was simply a creation of politics at that time. Similarly, his wider histories are basically ignored as part of that Western-Christian exceptionalism that was so common, and a failure when it came to actually history.

Most certainly great cities and civilizations existed before and after the ascendancy of Arab and Muslim expansion. Seville had great bridges, viaducts and bathhouses, built by Romans. Most civilizations expanded and built upon the previous, or destroyed them. What is the point of O’Neil’s writings but an attempt to somehow temporarily ignore that fact only for the Arabs and Muslims?

The undeniable fact was that the Arabs and Berbers moved in to locations like Southern Iberia and not only supported what was worth keeping but expanded and added more. That at that time, Europe was in decline if not moving backwards whilst the Muslim World was in many places starting their own Golden Age. Cordoba became a centre for learning and science whilst its neighbours were often sleeping in the same room with their sheep, pigs and cows. Whilst philosophy, astronomy and the words of Aristotle and Plato were being restored, discussed and expanded on – Europe was burning those thinking of such things as witches and heretics.

Just as undeniable is that the clash of faiths existed, brutality and anti-semitism existed on both sides and histories were often fabrications to support agendas.

O’Neil attempts to read those that suit his agenda as truths whilst ignoring others and their contexts. At worst he fails to at least mention other views and leave the questions to the readers, that for him would be defeatist to his agenda.

The Library of Alexander was destroyed at least four times to varying degrees, rumours of it being finished off by Muslims for various reasons have resonated for years, mostly incorrect and most certainly forgetting the Great Fire of the Alexandrian War in 48 BC, the SAcking by Aurellian in the 3rd Century and the vetting of the un-Godly texts by Pope Theophilus (Copt) in 391. Most certainly Caliph Umar chose to get rid of what was left of the Library because it stored Ismaili texts that were creating schisms in the empire. This is well documented. The problem was that Christianity wanted to say otherwise, such as the equally well documented hoax of Pococke’s translation of “History of the Dynasties” in 1663.

The only question that comes from this item is why was it written and for what agenda, hate or profit – my bet is a little bit of both.

As an update to my previous item on the Cordoba Initiative, the building of a large Mosque and Community Centre a few blocks away from the 9/11 site in New York, the Project appears to be continuing with legal efforts failing to stop it.

I have stated in my blog and in some forums that I am against the Project, but for none of the reasons pushed by the ugly agenda driven groups leading the opposition. I have not seen evidence enough from the Project that demographics demand the location and that radicalization and other political agendas will not take over the Project. From what I have seen, there is enough radical, ultra-conservative and outside influences that seep into America’s Muslims, regardless of the best intentions to stop it. The combination of these two points for me is enough to say, do not build it, or at least do not build it there. Demographics is important, as it is still a Mosque, they say they want the Project to be a national symbol and a monument to inter-faith dialogue, I support that – so why not in Washington DC as a site?

It tells us that many of the players trying to block the project have in fact used the laws that are supporting the Project to support the building of Churches and other houses of worship and yet are now opposing these very same laws. Cook says “Oddly, many of the groups leading and supporting the campaign against the so-called mosque have a history of arguing in favor of religious freedom on similar cases.”

Family of 9/11 Victims are pushed emotionally by those with agenda hate to assume Islam itself is the cause of their suffering.

The American Center for Law and Justice, the legal advocacy group leading the charge, has argued repeatedly and forcefully in federal court on at least three occasions that local land-use laws such as historical landmark designations don’t trump the religious and property rights of religious groups to build houses of worship. So has the Anti-Defamation League, which controversially came out in opposition to the mosque last week. The group has filed no less than five amicus briefs in federal court arguing that local governments can’t use zoning laws to prevent the building of churches and synagogues.

Indeed, these groups all compose part of a large ecosystem of religious-rights organizations; members of such groups have made frequent use of a federal law that erects significant barriers for local governments seeking to interfere with religious buildings. With few exceptions, in the case of Cordoba House, these groups have either been silent or directly contradicted their own history of statements and action.

The American Center for Law and Justice, the legal advocacy group leading the charge, has argued repeatedly and forcefully in federal court on at least three occasions that local land-use laws such as historical landmark designations don’t trump the religious and property rights of religious groups to build houses of worship. So has the Anti-Defamation League, which controversially came out in opposition to the mosque last week. The group has filed no less than five amicus briefs in federal court arguing that local governments can’t use zoning laws to prevent the building of churches and synagogues.

Indeed, these groups all compose part of a large ecosystem of religious-rights organizations; members of such groups have made frequent use of a federal law that erects significant barriers for local governments seeking to interfere with religious buildings. With few exceptions, in the case of Cordoba House, these groups have either been silent or directly contradicted their own history of statements and action.

More condemning:

The group’s website says it “remains committed to the principle that the use of zoning laws to curtail the religious freedoms of churches is unconstitutional.”

I find it interesting that with all the blogosphere hype and a few very short appearances on cable, Pamela Geller who claims to be the leader of the anti-Mosque movement, is not mentioned at all. Her greatness is obviously in her own mind and she will make her racist, bigoted and self-congratulatory remarks as if she will stop the Project by her own super-powers.

I hope the Project does not go ahead, as I have mentioned, not for bigoted and agenda-for-profiteering reasons. They simply have to work harder to justify it.

The promise of a quickly formed government by leading Dutch party figures has most certainly failed from birth. The beginning of July figure has passed us by and we are now into the fourth negotiator.

The demand for a coalition from the right of politics dies because of Wilders’ bigoted and ugly demands, a “Purple Coalition” even more so fails as Labour and others will have nothing to do with the racist anti-Islam party. A minority of left and centrist parties seems to be ignored because they are a minority and had screwed-up Holland’s economy and social welfare system in the past. The Netherlands opportunity for creating a government now is stuck in a quagmire of its’ own making – a combination of an antiquated and flawed electoral system that allows one-man political parties and encourages coalitions; and the previous governments failing the people in social and economic areas that when unheeded breeds radicalization.

It is simply time to admit the people screwed-up, fell for well worded ugly propoganda and broke the traditional mold of voting serious in national elections and protests in local ones. Had the Dutch people understood that in the current electoral system, giving a mad-man and wannabe Jorg Haider around 13 per cent of the vote will cause this mess – they would most certainly change their votes.

The possibilities of forming a government appear to be zero and the greatest of errors now would be the feeling that they are obliged to form one with what they have regardless, is scary to say the least.

CDA leader Maxime Verhagen has made it quite clear that a number of elements in the PVV’s manifesto are non-negotiable.

A ban on immigration from Islamic countries, the closure of all Islamic schools, a ban on the Koran and the introduction of a tax on headscarves… none of these are ever going to become a reality in a cabinet involving the CDA.

Nor is a foreign policy based on combating Islam. The Dutch will not start calling Jordan Palestine.

On radio this weekend, senior VVD member of parliament Frans Weisglas (an old friend of mine) called on his leader Marke Rutte to stay clear of Geert Wilders and the PVV stating that ‘I do not think a Liberal party like mine, the VVD, should work together with a party which systematically discriminates against an entire part of the population’.

Equally, in the Financieele Dagblad, Arie Oostlander and Bert de Vries, leading figures of the CDA called forming alliances with Wilders as a recipe for “hiking up opposition rather than bridging tensions”. Additionally, Oostlander stated that Wilders would not sit quietly in a minority government and play every moment to his advantage. He called Wilders “far to slippery”.

According to Pascoe, the only real commonality between the potential coalition of VVD and the PVV is that “both the VVD and PVV are opposed to any tax increases – or passing the cost of reducing the budget deficit onto the man in the street” and then raises the very understandable question about how could they achieve it when the rest of the manifestos are so different (let alone the PVV platform is not based on workable experience).

I reported just after the election that exit polls and then another a day after hinted that if they knew what the results were, the population probably would have given Labour a workable majority. As a former PVV party member and city Councillor for them, that pains me but nevertheless consider that a better option. I wonder what a new election would produce now?

The reason I have posted the item is that it shows attitudes of one of modern history’s most infamous characters, it shows anti-Semitism at its worst (and what sheer and unadulterated ugliness it eventually resulted in). It also has a modern perspective that should not be forgotten, that radical agendas, values has most certainly resurfaced its ugly head at levels not seen since the time of Adolf Hitler. Thus, I post this as a reminder of what can happen.

As per my policy, I give full acknowledgment, respect and gratitude to the fine work of those that produced this item, I ask all to go to the site and most certainly never stop learning.

Hitler returned from a military hospital to Munich in early 1919. There he underwent a Reichswehr sponsored course of systematic political education for demobilizing soldiers that featured Pan- German nationalism, antisemitism, and anti-socialism. These same themes were prominent in Bavarian politics following the repression of the Munich revolution of 1918-19. Because antisemitism had not played a notable part in Bavarian politics prior to the revolutionary disturbances, a Herr Adolf Gemlich was prompted to send an inquiry about the importance of the “Jewish question” to Captain Karl Mayr, the officer in charge of the Reichswehr News and Enlightenment Department in Munich. Mayr referred him to Hitler, who had distinguished himself in the above-mentioned course by the vehemence of his radical nationalist and antisemitic views, and by his oratorical talents. Hitler was already feeling his way toward a political career; four days before responding to Gemlich in the letter translated below, he had paid his first visit to the German Workers’ Party (eventually renamed, the National Socialist Workers’ Party) as a confidential agent of the Reichswehr. In the letter to Gemlich he appears anxious to establish his credentials as a knowledgeable and sober antisemite. Compared to the inflammatory mass-meeting oratory that he was soon to make his specialty, Hitler’s rhetoric here is quite tame, stressing the need for a “rational” and “scientific” antisemitism. Some historians have interpreted the letter’s call for the “irrevocable removal [Entfernung]” of the Jews from German life as a prefiguring of the Holocaust. But it is clear from the context and from later statements that, at this point, Hitler meant segregation or expulsion rather than systematic liquidation. The letter, Hitler’s first explicitly political writing, impressed his Reichswehr superiors and he soon gained a reputation among radical rightist and socially respectable nationalist conservative groups as a man who could help inoculate the masses against revolution and whose antisemitic rhetoric could help discredit the democratic Weimar Republic. The letter may thus be seen as the launching of his political career. Source: Eberhard Jäckel (ed.), Hitler. Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen 1905-1924 (Stuttgart, 1980), pp. 88-90. Translated by Richard S. Levy.]

[September 16, 1919]

Dear Herr Gemlich,

The danger posed by Jewry for our people today finds expression in the undeniable aversion of wide sections of our people. The cause of this aversion is not to be found in a clear recognition of the consciously or unconsciously systematic and pernicious effect of the Jews as a totality upon our nation. Rather, it arises mostly from personal contact and from the personal impression which the individual Jew leaves–almost always an unfavorable one. For this reason, antisemitism is too easily characterized as a mere emotional phenomenon. And yet this is incorrect. Antisemitism as a political movement may not and cannot be defined by emotional impulses, but by recognition of the facts. The facts are these: First, Jewry is absolutely a race and not a religious association. Even the Jews never designate themselves as Jewish Germans, Jewish Poles, or Jewish Americans but always as German, Polish, or American Jews. Jews have never yet adopted much more than the language of the foreign nations among whom they live. A German who is forced to make use of the French language in France, Italian in Italy, Chinese in China does not thereby become a Frenchman, Italian, or Chinaman. It’s the same with the Jew who lives among us and is forced to make use of the German language. He does not thereby become a German. Neither does the Mosaic faith, so important for the survival of this race, settle the question of whether someone is a Jew or non-Jew. There is scarcely a race whose members belong exclusively to just one definite religion.

Through thousands of years of the closest kind of inbreeding, Jews in general have maintained their race and their peculiarities far more distinctly than many of the peoples among whom they have lived. And thus comes the fact that there lives amongst us a non- German, alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving. Nevertheless, it possesses all the political rights we do. If the ethos of the Jews is revealed in the purely material realm, it is even clearer in their thinking and striving. Their dance around the golden calf is becoming a merciless struggle for all those possessions we prize most highly on earth.

The value of the individual is no longer decided by his character or by the significance of his achievements for the totality but exclusively by the size of his fortune, by his money.

The loftiness of a nation is no longer to be measured by the sum of its moral and spiritual powers, but rather by the wealth of its material possessions.

This thinking and striving after money and power, and the feelings that go along with it, serve the purposes of the Jew who is unscrupulous in the choice of methods and pitiless in their employment. In autocratically ruled states he whines for the favor of “His Majesty” and misuses it like a leech fastened upon the nations. In democracies he vies for the favor of the masses, cringes before the “majesty of the people,” and recognizes only the majesty of money.

He destroys the character of princes with byzantine flattery, national pride (the strength of a people), with ridicule and shameless breeding to depravity. His method of battle is that public opinion which is never expressed in the press but which is nonetheless managed and falsified by it. His power is the power of money, which multiplies in his hands effortlessly and endlessly through interest, and which forces peoples under the most dangerous of yokes. Its golden glitter, so attractive in the beginning, conceals the ultimately tragic consequences. Everything men strive after as a higher goal, be it religion, socialism, democracy, is to the Jew only means to an end, the way to satisfy his lust for gold and domination.

In his effects and consequences he is like a racial tuberculosis of the nations.

The deduction from all this is the following: an antisemitism based on purely emotional grounds will find its ultimate expression in the form of the pogrom.[1] An antisemitism based on reason, however, must lead to systematic legal combatting and elimination of the privileges of the Jews, that which distinguishes the Jews from the other aliens who live among us (an Aliens Law). The ultimate objective [of such legislation] must, however, be the irrevocable removal of the Jews in general.

For both these ends a government of national strength, not of national weakness, is necessary.

The Republic in Germany owes its birth not to the uniform national will of our people but the sly exploitation of a series of circumstances which found general expression in a deep, universal dissatisfaction. These circumstances however were independent of the form of the state and are still operative today. Indeed, more so now than before. Thus, a great portion of our people recognizes that a changed state-form cannot in itself change our situation. For that it will take a rebirth of the moral and spiritual powers of the nation.

And this rebirth cannot be initiated by a state leadership of irresponsible majorities, influenced by certain party dogmas, an irresponsible press, or internationalist phrases and slogans. [It requires] instead the ruthless installation of nationally minded leadership personalities with an inner sense of responsibility.

But these facts deny to the Republic the essential inner support of the nation’s spiritual forces. And thus today’s state leaders are compelled to seek support among those who draw the exclusive benefits of the new formation of German conditions, and who for this reason were the driving force behind the revolution–the Jews. Even though (as various statements of the leading personalities reveal) today’s leaders fully realized the danger of Jewry, they (seeking their own advantage) accepted the readily proffered support of the Jews and also returned the favor. And this pay-off consisted not only in every possible favoring of Jewry, but above all in the hindrance of the struggle of the betrayed people against its defrauders, that is in the repression of the antisemitic movement.

The story of Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd and Josh Fattal is well-known. The three hikers were detained by Iranian authorities and now held without trial for over 12 months. The lack of charges and the claims of spying by the Iranian Government has become a political issue as much as a human rights issue for the families of the three.

I have raised the issue here because of two questions in my opinion need to be aired and answered.

Politics

How much has the issue been politicized by us in the West because of the current anti-Iranian and nuclear issue, is politics and agenda taking over the issue? To put it more bluntly, is the support for the three for their human rights by many public figures or is it for other reasons? The very respectable archbishop Desmond Tutu makes the demand and I respect that his motives are honest and clear enough, but some including those within the US Administration I have doubts. For the families of the three, they would rightly not care about the politics and if it rides on the back of political agenda games, all the better for them if it comes to a result.

It should be pointed out that the three are “anti-war, social justice and Palestinian solidarity activists” with one being a well known left-wing activist and journalist. That raises the next question:

Events

We here a great deal about their plight, the inhumanity they are suffering, but not much about why and how they were picked up. Hikers straying over the border sounds fine alone, until one looks at the matter more closely. I ask only one simple question that as far as I have seen has not been answered that frankly is a point Iranians are using:

Who goes camping/hiking in a country with war, lawlessness and terrorism let alone the kidnapping, torture and murder of foreigners? That region of Kurdistan is reasonably peaceful, but all watch-lists including from the US government said it is still a high-risk area prone to situation changes. Was it just a visit to a waterfall?

As mentioned, this has not been clearly answered, and if one takes away the political agendas and media hype, a very constant and unanswered question is raised that many outside America are asking. What is the truth? They certainly do not look like idiots unaware of the dangers of stepping in that country, let alone entering danger zones. They appear not to be “religious zealots” looking to convert locals as if that was the case, then they would be fools, repugnant and insulting and should have been charged as such.

As activists with known political links, they may very well have gone for “some cause” which is not clear. A scoop, a story to come back with. The only alternative is the spy charges, which is doubtful, the US is not that unprofessional to do so.

Was it tourism?

One French commentator I heard on radio said that it may very well be the combination of political agendas to cause an incident to justify more condemnation. I have not seen evidence in either direction and no common sense in the matter and just political agenda from both sides and being played to the max. The victims may not even be the three, but most certainly their families are suffering.

The Dove World Outreach Center is not new to controversy, they have been active for years issuing “Islam is of the Devil” T-Shirts, condemning homosexuality with near violence, condemning basically anything or anyone that disagrees with them, to put it simply – nothing really “dove” like at all.

“The NAE calls on its members to cultivate relationships of trust and respect with our neighbors of other faiths. God created human beings in his image, and therefore all should be treated with dignity and respect”

The leader of Dove World Outreach Center is Pastor Dr Terry Jones, author of “Islam is of the Devil“, a hate-for-profit book that simply claims examples of historical events as some form of devilish proof (and conveniently ignoring the equally ugly history of Christianity) and then tying it to literal and fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. It is ironic that much, if not most, of Islam’s problems is with equally ugly individuals taking religious texts in a literal and fundamentalists manner. He blames Islam for 9/11……

If we try to consider the logic behind such an ugly and frankly un-Christian excercise, we can only come to a number of conclusions.

a) He and his wife (why is it always the most successful fruitcake profiteering Evangelists are a husband & wife combo?) are seeking controversy to catch dollars because it sells so well.

b) They are truly radical fundamentalists and simply blinded.

Why I think it is the former and not the latter is because of the book by Jones. We must assume that he had to do some research to write a book and then in that case he knows his work is a lie. He follows the baseless lines that other hate-for-profiteers do by noting the acts of (other) radicals and extremists and then assuming that all Muslims are as such. Alternatively, following the Spencer-farce by pushing that the radical Islamists are obviously real Muslims and the rest are heretics. Jones may very well have written his book from inside his closet and based all of his work on guess works and from questionable bloggers like Spencer, either way even the most closed mind that bothers to look at the world knows it is pure rubbish.

I personally do not care if a group of obviously blinded radical evangelists with a lack of knowledge and facts burns books, though it is ugly and hurtful to the Muslims, but what it most certainly will do is be used as proof by the just-as-ugly radical Islamists as proof that Christian America is on a Crusade to wage war on Islam and thus they must do the same.

Thanks Dr Jones, you have done everything to make sure the division stays and gets worse.

Terry Jones, Michael Palin and Terry Gilliam

I wonder what the much more famous and respectable Terry Jones would think about this person, considering he directed The Life of Brian and the best of the very sacriligeous Monty Python sketches, including the “not the Spanish Inquisition” skits.

As it is not a long item so I will quote it in full, with full acknowledgement and respect to DutchNews.nl.

Friday 09 July 2010

The Netherlands may be on the brink of its first football World Cup title, but in some parts of the Dutch Bible Belt, watching tv on a Sunday is totally forbidden, the Telegraaf points out on Friday.

And Kees van der Staaij, leader of the fundamentalist Protestant party SGP is one of those who will not be following events in South Africa.

‘Absolutely not,’ a spokesman told the Telegraaf. ‘He may watch television occasionally for work but never to relax and absolutely not on Sunday.’

In the village of Urk, which has 20 plus churches for its population of 17,000, three cafes have aroused the ire of religious leaders for deciding to open their doors during the match.

But in the Bible Belt heartland of Staphorst people who actually have a tv will watch quietly at home, a town council spokeswoman said. ‘Someone might run outside with a tooter, but they will go back in again straight away’.

What does this item tell us? For me, many things. I dislike the SGP for many reasons, that they want to ban women from any public office being amongst them. Having said that, the right to religious belief is a fundamental principle that I share with my country and consider that sacred. The question does comes at what point does a faith that control the lives of its followers cross over the line of the rules, standards and morals of the country as a whole. Also when does those followers start impacting on those that disagree with that faith’s standards? History, recent past and even the present has endless examples of what that causes around our now very small planet.

We all know the grave problem of how radical Islamism forces not only other Muslims to follow a certain line, but how it also makes unwarranted and unjustified demands on western societies that these radicals are present in. That radicalism is not only subject of media attention, albeit much real and some often exaggerated, but it is also used and abused by other radicals to fulfill their own ugly agendas. My blog is full of such examples. Nevertheless, if radical Islamists are willing to go that far, what about Christian Fundamentalist groupings like that which the SGP represent – will they go that far if they are able to get away with it?

That is the question that I wish readers to consider. What would happen say if the SGP took the second largest number of voters or the largest? They would demand women not be allowed to take public office, that is a clear agenda platform – even though that would require a constitutional alteration. Would they forbid football on Sundays? Would they force Christian teachings in Government Schools? Would they limit or ban non-Christian schools? Limit the growth, sponsorship and funding of non-Christian organisations that are involved in serious community work?

What is the limit when a community thinks something is sinful and requires actions? My concern is that groups like the SGP will, as a result of economic and social issues, become more radicalized with the extreme members having more influence in policy. That they will grow like the PVV (or perhaps take some of the PVV votes as and when that ugly abomination collapses) and that their numbers will grow to a significant level to create a lobby group with just enough clout to make trouble. What will happen, I fear, is that they will have enough influence to have a say, a hearing of sorts, but because their principles are a “matter of faith” and a “matter of God’s Will in their batle against what they call sin”, that they will feel OBLIGED to take matters into their own hands.

The subject in that item might seem to be about football, but it raises a very interesting question. Though tolerance, human rights and freedom of expression are the normal accepted standards of my country, our history has often shown otherwise. In our more recent past a siginficant enough number of my country along with a number of others, sided with Hitler and embraced even Nazism. Further back it should never be forgotten that the apartheid movement, organized racism and much of European’s ugly history in Africa stemmed directly from the guidence and followers of the Dutch Reformed Church.

Special Items

Rules & Disclaimer

All polite comments on-topic will be accepted. No personal attacks, vulgarities and spamming accepted.

Comments made remain the opinion of the author and do not refect the views of Blootstellen unless such an expression is published.

The blog remains non-religious and neither supports nor condemns faith. Intollerance, prosthelitizing and religious-based battles will not be published unless it is the subject matter of it being radicalized itself.